Rogers Media uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. Rogers Media supports the Digital Advertising Alliance principles. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.

We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.

Harper repeats pledge to end party subsidy

Conservative leader Stephen Harper reiterated his intention to scrap the per-voter subsidy on Friday, though he cautioned he would need a majority to go ahead with the plan. Harper’s last attempt to end the subsidy in 2008 nearly brought his government after the opposition parties united against it. A Conservative majority, Harper said, would phase out the subsidy over three years. “This is where we want to go,” he said, “and where we think voters want us to go.”

Filed under:

Advertisement

Advertisement

Post navigation

Harper repeats pledge to end party subsidy

Ignatieff likes to drop allegations about citizens as if they were guilty verdicts. Let's talk about guilty verdicts of theft and fraud by Liberals as in the multimillon dollar Adscam scandal where Liberals were found guilty and pleaded guilty in a court of law and not mere allegations that may go nowhere.

And more recently why doesn't Ignatieff speak of Liberal Senator Lavigne who was found guilty of fraud etc. by the courts and not just allegations.
Mr. Justice Robert Smith of the Ontario Superior Court pronounced two guilty verdicts on charges of fraud and breach of trust on Friday March 11 2011 (this is not ancient history), saying that Liberal Senator Lavigne's behaviour “constituted a severe and marked departure from the standard expected of a senator.”

The RCMP investigator who built the case against Liberal Senator Mr. Lavigne added that the verdict makes it clear that no one is above the law, including legislators.
Liberal Senator Lavigne faces a maximum sentence of 14 years in relation to his conviction.

“Every public officeholder has to be held accountable to a higher standard than the normal population,” Superintendent Stéphane Bonin told reporters.

Ignatieff likes to drop allegations about citizens as if they were guilty verdicts. Let's talk about guilty verdicts of theft and fraud by Liberals as in the multimillon dollar Adscam scandal where Liberals were found guilty and pleaded guilty in a court of law and not mere allegations that may go nowhere.

And more recently why doesn't Ignatieff speak of Liberal Senator Lavigne who was found guilty of fraud etc. by the courts and not just allegations.
Mr. Justice Robert Smith of the Ontario Superior Court pronounced two guilty verdicts on charges of fraud and breach of trust on Friday March 11 2011 (this is not ancient history), saying that Liberal Senator Lavigne's behaviour “constituted a severe and marked departure from the standard expected of a senator.”

The RCMP investigator who built the case against Liberal Senator Mr. Lavigne added that the verdict makes it clear that no one is above the law, including legislators.
Liberal Senator Lavigne faces a maximum sentence of 14 years in relation to his conviction.

“Every public officeholder has to be held accountable to a higher standard than the normal population,” Superintendent Stéphane Bonin told reporters.

I've said it before, but here goes again: The per-vote subsidy is ingenious in the way it guarantees that low-income Canadians, who will never consider donating to a political party, at least some consideration by political parties. Without the dollar per vote, and pure reliance on donors for party financing – the less fortunate will have little to no one trying to represent their needs in parliament and the vicious cycle of poverty will spiral out of control.

The subsidy is designed perfectly for a well functioning democracy. The Harper Govt. has to at least try and think of the consequences for our country, besides trying to crush their political enemy, please corporations and mimic the United States.

I've said it before, but here goes again: The per-vote subsidy is ingenious in the way it guarantees that low-income Canadians, who will never consider donating to a political party, at least some consideration by political parties. Without the dollar per vote, and pure reliance on donors for party financing – the less fortunate will have little to no one trying to represent their needs in parliament and the vicious cycle of poverty will spiral out of control.

The subsidy is designed perfectly for a well functioning democracy. The Harper Govt. has to at least try and think of the consequences for our country, besides trying to crush their political enemy, please corporations and mimic the United States.

There is more than one way to give. You can volunteer. Additionally, if we are only talking about a dollar per vote, then almost every Canadian can afford to give (if that be an efficient way to give is another matter). Certainly the number of Canadians that can afford to give is much higher than the number of Canadians that show up to vote, which, by the way, is free.*

*free: covered by taxation, demonstrating that we are already allocating $ to have our opinions registered. How much more is needed? (note that I am just asking & not attempting to carry water)

Theoretically there is a logical path to your argument that can be followed. Unfortunately for you, your argument is obliterated by a hundred more sensible arguments, and by reality. Not only is there no evidence for your argument, anywhere, anytime, anyplace, it is also completely annihilated by the simple fact that you don't eliminate poverty by giving money to politicians for politicians to promote themselves. The politicians take the money and spend it to make themselves look good and their opponents look bad. Somehow you've come to believe that this benefits poor people. We already have a mechanism for government to respond to voters' wishes: the election.

I've also obliterated your argument here in other ways, namely, that the subsidy is a mechanism to assist the incumbent:

I am not saying that any party takes any of their donation money and somehow returns it to any of the groups that gave it to them – of course they use it to advertise, pay staff. Its that in order to keep that money and the votes coming back each election, they will consider there needs within their policy creations. I see the G&M article of yesterday and will admit that apparently most donors are of the small amount type, (if I want to believe that a website named punditsguide can do an accurate survey, never heard of them), but how much vote subsidy money comes from the segment of people that would never consider budgeting even $20 a year for a party. An example of something similar using the Harper Govt., if they want the 10%ers to continue, they will think of the policies that those folks believe in. The poor already seem to get much less consideration than most demographics by parliament – if we remove the donation their votes bring, we remove much of the incentive to govern with them in mind. Its not a huge incentive mind you, the "poor" vote and corresponding susbidy amount – but its easy to see that things will only get worse as far as policies in Ottawa helping that group, if their votes mean even less to the federal parties. Without the subisdy, how is a party that wants to advocate for the poor supposed to compete financially (and we know thats important these days for advertising) with one that wants to advocate for what benefits the relatively wealthy – tell me which party is likely to be the one to fade away seat wise if they dont adjust their policies?

SirJohn_Eh on April 3, 2011 at 7:17 am

"if we remove the donation their votes bring, we remove much of the incentive to govern with them in mind"

That is the crux of your argument, and it is false. Politicians seek power. To gain power they win elections, and to win elections they need votes. Not taxes! Votes.

Votes don't mean less because there is no money attached. Votes always have had, and always will have, the same meaning: they determine the winner of the election.

You have a very disturbed view of humanity. Politicians must treat the poor well, not just because they will lose their votes, but because they will lose everybody's votes. Nobody likes to see the poor ignored. Most people donate to charities and most people wish to see the poor do better (and most people would like to see the poor help themselves to do better).

The most disturbing aspect of your opinion is that you believe it's the government's job to help the poor. The government is not there to be everybody's saviour, to tuck you in at night and to ensure you have groceries in the morning. The government's job is to govern, not to be our collective religion. It is society as a whole that should help the poor. Governments don't alleviate poverty. Governments can provide welfare programs, but it's been shown time and time again, that these programs do not reduce poverty. Governments can only safeguard the conditions for people to lift themselves out of poverty. Government never has, and never will, be a source of prosperity. They never have been, and they never will be. To believe that is to abdicate your own responsibilities as a human being that you and your neighbours dictate the relative success of your society, not some bureaucrats in an office miles away.

s_c_f on April 4, 2011 at 1:47 am

Well, that's certainly true. But the bulk of the taxpayer's money is going to expenses for exactly promoting the political parties. Leave the per-vote subsidy alone, but let's do get rid of the 60% reimbursement.

There is more than one way to give. You can volunteer. Additionally, if we are only talking about a dollar per vote, then almost every Canadian can afford to give (if that be an efficient way to give is another matter). Certainly the number of Canadians that can afford to give is much higher than the number of Canadians that show up to vote, which, by the way, is free.*

*free: covered by taxation, demonstrating that we are already allocating $ to have our opinions registered. How much more is needed? (note that I am just asking & not attempting to carry water)

The subsidy is a logical scheme to encourage democracy. Harper has more bag man and his coffers are full so the hell with all other Canadians. We will go back to the old days when you could buy an election and this is what Harper wants.

The subsidy is a logical scheme to encourage democracy. Harper has more bag man and his coffers are full so the hell with all other Canadians. We will go back to the old days when you could buy an election and this is what Harper wants.

We all remember the tremendous backlash that announcement provoked back in 2008. Well nothing has changed, except that it further motivates the Opposition (actually, opposition no longer as we're in election mode). Thanks Stevie for consolidating the anti-Harper vote. He's not really a master tactician, contrary to what some may believe.

We all remember the tremendous backlash that announcement provoked back in 2008. Well nothing has changed, except that it further motivates the Opposition (actually, opposition no longer as we're in election mode). Thanks Stevie for consolidating the anti-Harper vote. He's not really a master tactician, contrary to what some may believe.

Now it turns out Ignatieff is out on his ear in a two leader debate. We learned today that if there is a coalition on the left, people want Jack Layton to be the leader by a long shot ( 59% to 27%), and not Count Iggy . So if consortium of broadcasters arrange the two leader debate, it will be Layton versus Harper – what a turn of events – but that is democracy that Ignatieff believes in and defends.

OTTAWA — If Canadians find themselves being governed by a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition following the May election, they want to see the NDP's Jack Layton become prime minister, results of an exclusive poll for Postmedia News and Global National released Friday suggest.

Only 27 per cent of the poll's respondents said they'd want Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to be top dog, compared with 14 per cent who support Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe and 59 per cent who said Layton.

Here we go again yet another election. Just keep in mind all politicians are liars, they are not capable of answering any question on what they stand for with a simple yes or no answer. Until they put honesty and accountabilty first and foremost in their campain I treat them all like crackheads and junkies they can not be trusted. Time to wake up Canadians.

Here we go again yet another election. Just keep in mind all politicians are liars, they are not capable of answering any question on what they stand for with a simple yes or no answer. Until they put honesty and accountabilty first and foremost in their campain I treat them all like crackheads and junkies they can not be trusted. Time to wake up Canadians.

The CPC are saying they dont expect taxpayers to finance all these losers lke the Grits, NDP, Greens, and the Bloc.
Make the losers go out and raise the money they need from their millions of supporters.
Maybe they wouldn't be so ready for unnecessary elections, if they couldn't rely on taxpayers, and had pay their way

Cut all political donations except the subsidy. That way at least 2 bucks of each voters tax money will go to the party they voted for. It will also put a stop to the rich buying our demorcary like they do in the States.

Cut all political donations except the subsidy. That way at least 2 bucks of each voters tax money will go to the party they voted for. It will also put a stop to the rich buying our demorcary like they do in the States.

The subsidy encourages true democracy to emerge. However since Harper 's war coffers are full he thinks buying elections would be more efficient. Why are Harper's coffers full ?? Airbus, F35 , In and Out , promises to bagmen of Senate appointments etc etc.

The subsidy encourages true democracy to emerge. However since Harper 's war coffers are full he thinks buying elections would be more efficient. Why are Harper's coffers full ?? Airbus, F35 , In and Out , promises to bagmen of Senate appointments etc etc.

Well, that's certainly true. But the bulk of the taxpayer's money is going to expenses for exactly promoting the political parties. Leave the per-vote subsidy alone, but let's do get rid of the 60% reimbursement.

The CPC are saying they dont expect taxpayers to finance all these losers lke the Grits, NDP, Greens, and the Bloc.
Make the losers go out and raise the money they need from their millions of supporters.
Maybe they wouldn't be so ready for unnecessary elections, if they couldn't rely on taxpayers, and had pay their way

Electoral expense reimbursement would include money the Conservatives stole from taxpayers through their in and out scheme in 2006; I'm not sure if they continued that kind of fraud in 2008 or if they thought uup new ways to rip us off.

Yes, I'd seen the graph and that's what made s_c_f's argument so compelling. And even if you subscribe, as the Conservatives contend, that all the parties do the in and out stuff, that's even further reason to axe the one that's so obviously difficult to understand or stay onside with.

But to be fair, the Conservatives didn't do the In and Out scheme in 2008.

Yes, I'd seen the graph and that's what made s_c_f's argument so compelling. And even if you subscribe, as the Conservatives contend, that all the parties do the in and out stuff, that's even further reason to axe the one that's so obviously difficult to understand or stay onside with.

But to be fair, the Conservatives didn't do the In and Out scheme in 2008.

Theoretically there is a logical path to your argument that can be followed. Unfortunately for you, your argument is obliterated by a hundred more sensible arguments, and by reality. Not only is there no evidence for your argument, anywhere, anytime, anyplace, it is also completely annihilated by the simple fact that you don't eliminate poverty by giving money to politicians for politicians to promote themselves. The politicians take the money and spend it to make themselves look good and their opponents look bad. Somehow you've come to believe that this benefits poor people. We already have a mechanism for government to respond to voters' wishes: the election.

I've also obliterated your argument here in other ways, namely, that the subsidy is a mechanism to assist the incumbent:

I am not saying that any party takes any of their donation money and somehow returns it to any of the groups that gave it to them – of course they use it to advertise, pay staff. Its that in order to keep that money and the votes coming back each election, they will consider there needs within their policy creations. I see the G&M article of yesterday and will admit that apparently most donors are of the small amount type, (if I want to believe that a website named punditsguide can do an accurate survey, never heard of them), but how much vote subsidy money comes from the segment of people that would never consider budgeting even $20 a year for a party. An example of something similar using the Harper Govt., if they want the 10%ers to continue, they will think of the policies that those folks believe in. The poor already seem to get much less consideration than most demographics by parliament – if we remove the donation their votes bring, we remove much of the incentive to govern with them in mind. Its not a huge incentive mind you, the "poor" vote and corresponding susbidy amount – but its easy to see that things will only get worse as far as policies in Ottawa helping that group, if their votes mean even less to the federal parties. Without the subisdy, how is a party that wants to advocate for the poor supposed to compete financially (and we know thats important these days for advertising) with one that wants to advocate for what benefits the relatively wealthy – tell me which party is likely to be the one to fade away seat wise if they dont adjust their policies?

The vote subsidy was put in place to replace the lost campaign dollars resulting from the ban on corporate and union donations. This is a good thing. Unless, of course, you would like our system to devolve into US politics lite. The Liberals do it right, while the Cons just keep trying to mess things up. Aghhh.

The vote subsidy was put in place to replace the lost campaign dollars resulting from the ban on corporate and union donations. This is a good thing. Unless, of course, you would like our system to devolve into US politics lite. The Liberals do it right, while the Cons just keep trying to mess things up. Aghhh.

"if we remove the donation their votes bring, we remove much of the incentive to govern with them in mind"

That is the crux of your argument, and it is false. Politicians seek power. To gain power they win elections, and to win elections they need votes. Not taxes! Votes.

Votes don't mean less because there is no money attached. Votes always have had, and always will have, the same meaning: they determine the winner of the election.

You have a very disturbed view of humanity. Politicians must treat the poor well, not just because they will lose their votes, but because they will lose everybody's votes. Nobody likes to see the poor ignored. Most people donate to charities and most people wish to see the poor do better (and most people would like to see the poor help themselves to do better).

The most disturbing aspect of your opinion is that you believe it's the government's job to help the poor. The government is not there to be everybody's saviour, to tuck you in at night and to ensure you have groceries in the morning. The government's job is to govern, not to be our collective religion. It is society as a whole that should help the poor. Governments don't alleviate poverty. Governments can provide welfare programs, but it's been shown time and time again, that these programs do not reduce poverty. Governments can only safeguard the conditions for people to lift themselves out of poverty. Government never has, and never will, be a source of prosperity. They never have been, and they never will be. To believe that is to abdicate your own responsibilities as a human being that you and your neighbours dictate the relative success of your society, not some bureaucrats in an office miles away.

As someone who has fundraised for a local Conservative candidate in the past, I can tell you it is not easy work. One has to get out at the local level, contact your supporters and be organized in your methods. The per-vote subsidy ignores all of that — no work involved, other than once every 2 to 5 years when there is an election. The per vote subsidy is simply what we as Conservatives have always called — political party welfare. There is already a very generous tax credit available for individuals who donate to political parties, so get out there and fundraise by getting your supporters to _actually write a cheque_ if you want to raise money. It not only ensures that donators have a real belief in the cause they are supporting, but it ensures that people who _do not_ have strong political beliefs are _not_ forced to support a political party automatically with their tax dollars.

As someone who has fundraised for a local Conservative candidate in the past, I can tell you it is not easy work. One has to get out at the local level, contact your supporters and be organized in your methods. The per-vote subsidy ignores all of that — no work involved, other than once every 2 to 5 years when there is an election. The per vote subsidy is simply what we as Conservatives have always called — political party welfare. There is already a very generous tax credit available for individuals who donate to political parties, so get out there and fundraise by getting your supporters to _actually write a cheque_ if you want to raise money. It not only ensures that donators have a real belief in the cause they are supporting, but it ensures that people who _do not_ have strong political beliefs are _not_ forced to support a political party automatically with their tax dollars.

Yeah, it is a lot of work, and we do do it, too. But you aren't being exactly honest, are you, since the bulk of your donations is of the anonymous $25 variety, right? The kind that can't be traced? I know in my riding association, we chose not to have a single one of those events where you "put money in a hat". Because we didn't want one somebody putting a thousand 20 dollar bills in the hat. I'm not saying your riding association is doing that, I'm just saying it could be doing that. And we'd never know.

I’ve heard it said that U.S. politicians can spend 5 hours a day begging supporters for money.
For the $2. a year that it costs me (remember, that goes to the party YOU voted for, not the Enemy), I’d rather my M.P. work for Me and Our Country then spending most of his time begging for money.

Yeah, it is a lot of work, and we do do it, too. But you aren't being exactly honest, are you, since the bulk of your donations is of the anonymous $25 variety, right? The kind that can't be traced? I know in my riding association, we chose not to have a single one of those events where you "put money in a hat". Because we didn't want one somebody putting a thousand 20 dollar bills in the hat. I'm not saying your riding association is doing that, I'm just saying it could be doing that. And we'd never know.

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.